Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705674
Original file (9705674.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge/under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES : That he did not receive an explanation of why or what type of discharge he was being given, and that he did not even know when he was discharged until 17 years later.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:

On 12 March 1969 he was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years. At the time of his induction he was just eight days short of his 20th birthday and had no prior active or reserve military service.

He successfully completed basic combat training at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, advanced individual training at Fort McClellan, Alabama, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

On 5 May 1969 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for his first recorded AWOL episode which took place on
3 May 1969 while he was still in basic training.

While enroute to the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia the applicant had two further incidents of AWOL; the first between 8 July and 12 August 1969 (35 days), and the second between 21 August and 23 September 1969 (33 days). He was punished for these disciplinary infractions by special court-martial which sentenced him to 4 months confinement at hard labor and reduction to private/E-1.

The applicant was then transferred to the retraining brigade at Fort     , Kansas to complete his confinement and in January 1970, upon completion of his punishment, he was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas.







In August 1970 the applicant began a series of AWOL incidents as follows: 4 August to 31 August 1970 (28 days); 4 September to 12 October 1970 (39 days); 2-24 November 1970 (23 days); and 27 November to 17 December 1970 (21 days), for which he received a second special court martial which was adjudged on 29 January 1971, affirmed on 13 May 1971, and sentenced the applicant to a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 4 months, and reduction to private/E-1.

The applicant was in military confinement from 18 December 1970 until 5 March 1971 (55 days) at which point he again went AWOL, a status he remained in until 2 May 1971
(58 days). On 18 May 1971 an order was published remitting the remaining portion of the applicant's confinement sentence, effective upon his discharge.

Accordingly, on 25 May 1971, the applicant was discharged, under other than honorable conditions, and issued a Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate after completing 11 months,
17 days of active military service, and accumulating 447 days of time lost.

Records on file, at the Army Review Board Agency, reveal that the applicant has received several sympathetic and impartial reviews of his case which have failed to produce evidence to support error or injustice warranting correction of the applicant's Army record.

On 25 June 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

On 11 March 1982 the Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied a request from the applicant for a discharge upgrade without a hearing. This determination was based on a failure by the applicant to submit sufficient relevant evidence to warrant a formal hearing.




On 21 September 1983, in a response to a 13 April 1983 application for correction of military records submitted by the applicant, the Army Board of Correction for Military Records, upheld it's earlier determinations and found that there was no basis to support changing the decision previously rendered.

DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2. The applicant's Trail by Court Martial was warranted based on his repeated incidents of AWOL, even after he had experienced a previous conviction for similar conduct, and his failure to respond to all rehabilitation attempts.

3. His contentions that he needs medical care from a veterans administration medical center, that the reasons for and type of discharge were not properly explained to him, and that he was unaware of the discharge information until 17 years later were considered but were determined to provide an insufficient basis to upgrade his discharge.

4. There is documented evidence that the applicant was fully aware of the of all aspects of his discharge processing, and that he was afforded all rights associated with the action. At the time of separation he acknowledged receipt of the court martial board proceedings, and authenticated a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces Of The United States Report of Transfer Or Discharge) which documented the type, the reason, and the authority for his discharge.

5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION : The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE :

GRANT

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

DENY APPLICATION




                                                      Karl F. Schneider
                                                      Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705674C070209

    Original file (9705674C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 12 March 1969 he was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years. On 25 June 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects. On 11 March 1982 the Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied a request from the applicant for a discharge upgrade without a hearing.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019765

    Original file (20090019765.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 November 1972, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. The discharge orders and the applicant's DD Form 214 show he was separated with an undesirable discharge on 11 January 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. ___________x______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074155C070403

    Original file (2002074155C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He was placed in confinement upon his last return to military control and charges were preferred against him for the AWOL offenses on 24 September 1970.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075015C070403

    Original file (2002075015C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he served 3 years, 11 months, and 19 days beyond his ETS date and that, upon being released from the United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), he should have been honorably discharged. On 30 May 1979, the unit commander recommended approval of the request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, on 15 June 1979, the applicant was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056014C070420

    Original file (2001056014C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: An upgrade of a soldier’s discharge may be warranted if the Board determines that the discharge was in error or unjust.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008233

    Original file (20080008233.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge and correction of his records as follows: a. correction of entries pertaining to lost time (4 April 1969 to 7 April 1969 and 1 May 1969 to 13 June 1969), in Item 30 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge); b. correction of an entry pertaining to lost time (4 April 1969 to 7 April 1969), in Item 44 (Lost Time) of his DD Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record); c. correction of the entry...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086066C070212

    Original file (2003086066C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he was accepted under lowered enlistment standards and he was diagnosed with an immature personality, passive aggressive type – chronic. After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence of record, the ADRB again determined that the applicant was properly discharged and that there was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020899

    Original file (20100020899.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100020899 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 28 April 1971, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 2, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), for Other Than Desertion (Court-Martial), with a BCD, in pay grade E-1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20080018326

    Original file (AR20080018326.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This document further shows that clemency on the sentence to confinement was disapproved. The applicant’s military personnel records contain a copy of United States Army Court of Military Review, Appellate Military Judges, United States (Appellee) versus [Applicant] in Court-Martial 423867, Decision, dated 6 January 1971, that shows the Court found the findings of guilty and sentence as approved by proper authority correct in law and fact and having determined, on the basis of the entire...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001297

    Original file (20090001297.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He goes on to state that his discharge was based on one incident in more than 2 years of a relatively clean record. There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.